What book or author awoke you from your dogmatic slumbers?

The Art of the Deal - President Donald J. Trump

I was afraid no one would recognize the quote. Although Kant was just being modest. If you read prolegemna or hist doctoral thesis you can see his thought leading there

Andy Clark - Supersizing the Mind

>smart people can't have cognitive biases
>all nominal christians are sincere
I wonder what the world ,must look like through such innocent eyes as yours

For me it was Joseph Campbell in my early 20s. I was brought up in a conservative literalist christian community. Young-earth creationism, science denying, the works.
I was always told that all other religions were false and that the bible was the literal word of a stern infallible creator. When I discovered Joseph Campbell, and comparative religion/mythology in general, it opened a whole new world for me. I finally understood the truths behind the metaphors and could finally dispense with the literalist interpretation of the Bible without resorting to edgy atheism.

The Bible. I knew that it was full of shit, and have been an atheist since I was 6.

Edgy

Mircea Eliade and Ortega y Gasset made me realize that you don't have to slop around in the shit simply because it's all you've ever known, but you can actually aspire to something greater, something worthwhile, and try to create, restore, or maintain it

Isn't an awakening just a process of self-realisation? Otherwise you wouldn't be open to the new ideas, fully.

> I do not like the "born again". They are rash, spiteful towards their past and towards anyone who hasn't been "born again". Meanwhile, I was born once. I arrived into this world complete, when I stepped out of my mother's womb, hit the ground running, and never looked back; while every single "manosphere" retard I've heard about seems to have spent half his life being an utter loser before his sudden, quasi-religious moment of "enlightenment". But nothing significant has ever come out of those who were so impressed by words that their entire life changed, and reversed directions, in an instant. It's just another form of weakness. I would have much preferred them in their original condition. Now they are neurotic, mistrustful, full of concealed and overt resentment towards what they were and what they had been; towards themselves, ultimately. They are broken men — that's what doing a 180 half-way through your life does to you. They are useless.

HEY! Jordan Peterson might be a meme, but he's a very insightful meme.

Intention by Anscombe

>Edgy
It is still one of my favourite books.
I love and admire religion, but have never been able to actually believe in it. Perhaps I am lacking the God gene.

Feyerabend. t. stemfag

By the way, where do I go now? Which philosophies have grown upon that?

>Mircea Eliade

patrician-tier user

Also, so much this

Well thomas kuhn if you haven't already read him. But wilfred sellars has a great essay entitled philosophy and the scientific image of man and I think any stem major who is philosophically bent or wants a good answer to the question "why philosophy" without necessarily casting aspersions on philosophy but needs proof should check it out. It's a little difficult but it's not impossible

google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://selfpace.uconn.edu/class/percep/SellarsPhilSciImage.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwj-_7nOn5rSAhUE6CYKHbtlAeIQFggaMAA&usg=AFQjCNFOUVAku8GKwb89nVpEU6A7AYLTeA&sig2=sxefrAu4YyRGZUAtmOHwCA

Oh, thanks a lot, I'd check it out! I actually have a little knowledge of philosophy, including Kuhn and Lakatos for philosophy of science. But looks like after Feyerabend the roads lead to postmodernist scum and I'd need to study that to understand what the fuck is going on nowadays.

So much fucking stuff dude. Feyerabend is beautiful and one of my personal heroes too. If you haven't, check out his (short, don't worry) interview in John Horgan's book, The End of Science. Shortly before his death. He comes across as a wonderful guy and it adds nuance to what his ultimate views of science and the human quest for knowledge really were. Also check out the Popper interview in there.

Feyerabend's posthumous book you probably already know about, but just in case, The Conquest of Abundance is really beautiful.

Depending on what you liked about Feyerabend, a lot of authors hit on similar notes. Personally what I love about him is his epistemic pluralism and flexible ontology. You might like the gamut of "post-positivist" authors like N.R. Hanson, Kuhn like the poster above said, Quine's indeterminacy, Fleck's thought collective, stuff like that. Even Foucault's early work. A difficult but helpful book is Zammito's _A Nice Derangement of Epistemes_, if you like this sort of thing.

Personally though if I had to recommend something holistically, I'd say check out Bachelard's philosophy of science and phenomenology of discovery/design, and Canguilhem's philosophy of biology, particularly his book on vitalism. That way you can avoid reading The Order of Things, which is just rehashing a lot of this stuff.
youtube.com/watch?v=am6TghIrYEc

Also, if you're interested in going really deep into epistemic pluralism as a phenomenology of science, you can't go wrong looking into Heidegger and Husserl, and maybe earlier hermeneutics (Dilthey). If you're willing to invest a lot of time, you might also get into William James' radical empiricism, and Gustav Fechner for similar reasons, basically anti-foundationalist accounts of knowledge, radical empiricisms that privilege all possible phenomenal or intentional content (including hunches, emotions, impulses) as irreducible aspects of the knowledge-seeking process. Ernst Mach, another guy you might want to check out, wrote to James on the publication of the latter's _Varieties of Religious Experience_ that scientific discovery is a lot like James' descriptions of religious revelation.

>But looks like after Feyerabend the roads lead to postmodernist scum and I'd need to study that to understand what the fuck is going on nowadays.

If you can suffer through Zammito's book, you can get a good handle on a lot of it.

Even the Latours and Derridas aren't all that bad. It's mostly their legions of grad students, who are only looking for a cudgel to beat science over the head with, that are (were) the problem.

The key thing to keep in mind is that scientific and logical positivism, basically modern scientism, was not something perennial that was suddenly questioned by postmodernism. It was itself a recent historical phenomenon growing out of the late neo-Kantian drive to systematize science and logic on transcendental grounds - one half of this drive channeled into Husserlian and then hermeneutic phenomenology, while the other became things like the Vienna positivists and the 20th century Anglo-American obsession with formal logic (with both the Husserl and the Russell crowds absorbing Frege and Brentano in their own ways).

Already in the 30s, when this is coalescing, people are beginning to question it. Wittgenstein quickly lost faith in logical positivism and atomism, and neo-neo-Hegelian thinkers started to dominate France, with a new perspective added by the "hermeneutic of suspicion" which typified the 20th century and birthed pomo.

By the time of the '60s, people like Kuhn, Hanson, Feyerabend, Quine on the Anglo-American side, and the structuralist and post structuralist paradigms on the continental side, were both reaching new zeitgeists, driven by internal forces that were greater than any one of these authors. It's not a coincidence that this is the great hippie era, the postwar era where metanarratives of progress become impossible and suspicion of states and experts become the norm.

When the positivists and incipient postmodernists finally clash, it's confusing to watch (especially in hindsight), because it seems like they hate each other a lot more than is really warranted, and like the "fight" doesn't really warm up but springs immediately into action. But what's really happening is that the rumblings had been felt for quite a while, they're just hard to see in the desiccated sources. So when people like Feyerabend do finally show up, they become the epitome of The Hated Anti-Science Relativist to the Science Team. Quine and even Kuhn spent much of their careers backpedaling and justifying their famous theories. Kuhn today is pretty uncontroversial but at the time he was seen as a vulgar relativist, by equally vulgar scientistic types. In reality, Kuhn and even Feyerabend loved science and did see it as progressive.

And then of course you get the '70s and '80s and even beyond, of derivative minor academics appropriating these authors for much less supple causes. SSK gets especially greedy for a while. Zammito's book is good on this, dispelling some of narratives and false dilemmas of postpositivism.

Holy shit, that's a lot of material. Thanks!
>because it seems like they hate each other a lot more than is really warranted
Feyerabend himself hated "fundamental" areas of science, like HEP (high energy physics), because it drains a lot of tax payers' money and gets "nothing". Incidentally, the same areas of science are the "face" of STEM nowadays (string theory, LHC, cosmology, Steven Hawking etc.), and obviously they don't like people who are preaching defunding them (which for HEP and astrophysics would essentially mean no more experiments, and who would like that). So I'd say it is warranted enough, even if what Feyerabend says is, to the great degree, true.